SAGINAW, MI — A judge has rejected a suspended Michigan State Police trooper's request for a new trial in connection with a drunken driving crash involving a Saginaw County Circuit Court probation worker.

Beemer's appellate attorney, Elizabeth Jacobs, argued that Beemer, 45, was entitled to a new trial because, among other reasons, Caprathe did not follow the court rule in ensuring that Beemer was aware of his rights when he waived his right to have a trial by jury and because the evidence regarding Russell Ray's injury from the crash was insufficient to show that it was a “serious” injury.

Caprathe, who convicted Beemer of the felony injury charge but acquitted him of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.17 or higher — the state's “Super Drunk” charge — denied the motion and also denied Jacobs' request for a “Ginther hearing,” intended for defendants to attempt to prove, through testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel.

Jacobs argued that since Beemer did not sign a court document waiving his right to a jury trial and Caprathe did not ask Beemer in court if he understood the rights he was giving up, that there should be an “automatic reversal” of his conviction.

Caprathe questioned whether Jacobs was arguing that Beemer, a trooper for 17 years, truly did not know the consequences of waiving a jury trial or whether he should receive a new trial based on the “technicality.” The judge told Jacobs that if she didn't call Beemer to the witness stand to testify about his understanding of the waiver, he would assume that she was using the technicality argument.

After Genesee County Assistant Prosecutor Chris Larobardiere, who is handling the case for the Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office because of a conflict of interest, presented his argument, Jacobs called Beemer to the stand. Beemer testified that until the day his trial began, he “assumed it'd be a jury trial.”

Beemer said his attorney, William Brisbois, said a bench trial was ideal because of the technical aspect of blood extrapolation — Caprathe acquitted Beemer of the “Super Drunk” charge because Beemer was just finishing a beer in his truck when he ran a stop sign and crashed into Ray's vehicle and didn't have his blood drawn until 90 minutes later — that Brisbois did not believe a jury would understand.

Beemer testified that he “wanted a jury trial.”

Both Larobardiere, the prosecutor at trial, and Caprathe said that it was known prior to Beemer's trial date, which had been pushed back numerous times, that the trial would be a bench trial and not a jury trial.

Saginaw County's five circuit judges all recused themselves from presiding over the case because “nobody wanted to hear” a bench trial, Larobardiere argued. When the judges recused themselves, Caprathe agreed to preside over the case, he said. When he agreed, he was informed that it would be a bench trial, he said.

The judge said he knows the court rules for ensuring a defendant knows his rights to a jury trial but “didn't bother with that” because he believed it already had been done. On the day of trial, Brisbois said in court that he spoke with Beemer about opting for a bench trial, Caprathe said.

Beemer's waiver couldn't have been more clear, the judge said, adding that he “can't imagine” that the Court of Appeals would find that it wasn't clear.

The trial lasted one day, as there was no issue as to whether Beemer was actually drinking that day. He testified that he was watching football and drinking beers at a friend's house and later the Log Cabin bar in Freeland. After drinking as many as eight beers over about six hours, Beemer said, he drove back to the friend's house to retrieve a hat.

As he drove to the friend's house, he drank a 12-ounce beer, he testified. As he drove south on Orr, he received a text message from his fiancee with a picture of his daughter, he testified, and “never saw” the stop sign at Gratiot.

Ray was driving west on Gratiot in his Buick Regal with his wife, then-10-year-old stepdaughter, and then-3-year-old son when Beemer crashed into him.

Ray suffered a fractured bone in his left wrist as a result of the crash, and Jacobs argued that his injury was not “serious” enough to meet the state statute for the charge.

Jacobs argued that the injury is not one that is listed in the statute and was not serious enough because Ray only had to take one day off of work and, she said, did not actually lose the use of his hand. Larobardiere said that even the Court of Appeals has struggled to define what is “serious” and what isn't and pointed out that the statute states that a “serious” injury “includes, but is not limited to” the list that Jacobs referred to.

Caprathe said that he looked at the “totality of the circumstances” in denying the motion, referring not just to the testimony of Ray's doctors but also his and his wife's testimony. Ray's injury is a “good example” of a serious impairment, Caprathe said.

Finally, Jacobs argued that Beemer did not receive effective counsel because Brisbois did not call an expert to testify that the injury was not serious. Caprathe said doing so “wasn't necessary” and “would have been a waste of time” because he was more interested in how Ray's injury specifically affected him.

State police spokeswoman Shannon Banner said Beemer, who was working out of the department's Bridgeport Post, remains on unpaid suspension pending his appeal of the conviction.